Talk:Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skeptic controversy

I added detail to this section, supported by references. I also removed the following:

"In fact, PEER has never stated that the National Park Service employees were ordered to present 'non-science' based information. The Grand Canyon: A Different View still remains for sale in the Grand Canyon Park bookstore, and the pamphlet, 'Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion' is still awaiting approval."

The first sentence seems at odd with the facts, since PEER's original press release did assert that Grand Canyon National Park is "not permitted" to give an age estimate due to political pressure, and Ruch stated that NPS is "under orders to suspend its belief in geology." The second sentence just repeats information from the previous section (I reworded the information in that previous section to be clearer). -Zefryl (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section because PEER retracted its earlier statement and it would be WP:UNDUE to keep it here. Mistake was corrected by PEER in appropriate manner. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Given that the only third-party-sourced content in Grand Canyon: A Different View is on the controversy covered in this article's 'Grand Canyon' section, I am proposing merging it here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of PEER's complaint, the book was mentioned in national and international news providing far greater exposure for it than the publishers could have bought. What would have happened if they had said nothing? AshforkAZ (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant -- WP:NOTAFORUM & WP:CRYSTAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Parenthetically, given that the book's Amazon Bestsellers Rank is only #517,160, it is hard to see why PEER would care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Support merge as there isn't any sources to demonstrate it is notable beyond the controversy. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No merge since the PEER group was but one cog in the over all discussion over the book. And their involvement was neither initial nor pivotal. The worldwide News Media had much more influence. There were many others who expressed opinions. AshforkAZ (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed: lack of any consensus. _Mthoodhood (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613034224/http://www.peer.org/about/index.php to http://www.peer.org/about/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]